The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.142.1976~7~ ~ ,~~~y~~y~ S •~ ~:~ ~; I November 9, 1976 - C . Richard Procense District Engineer O Colorado Division of Highways . P.O. Box 2107 '.~ AT Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 ~e~i Dear Dick: i We have had an opportunity to review the Draft Emrironmental Impact Statement for "Carbondale East" and have a number of observations. First, we would like to express our appreciation for the cooperation • and consideration extended to our County by the Division and your • office, specifically. We believe the Halprin work did provide a benefit and represents a sensitive analysis of opportunities available - •to us with regard to the highway.- We have received the Halprin report as a useful work, but everyone must understand that one report could not possibly identify all of the impacts created by the construction of a 40 to 65 million dollar highway in our area. - Following this critique of the Carbondale East D.E.I.S. is a proposal • for the development of a joint transportation program between the .- State Highway Department and local governments within the Roaring Fork Valley. If instituted, this program could provide immediate -relief to some of the current transportation problems of this valley. Repeated reference is made is the D.E.I.S. to Pitkin County's fear of the growth implications of a four ,lane improvement .• Our resistence is characterized as based in a concern for the new tourist and permanent home development that would follow the construction of a new highway. -While it is a legitimate fear, we realize that we control our own' destiny with respect to land use activities. .Our concerns go beyond simple land use matters and involve further quesitons as to the long term role of the automobile in Aspen and Pitkin County as the primary means of movement for the local resident and tourist alike. We. note, however, that beyond the :county Tine at Basalt we have no jurisdiction and the .four lane will make commuting from the Basalt-Carbondale area where land is cheaper and winters less severe and this~wil], create more traffic on this highway and this impact should be analyzed. The criticisms of the D.E.I.S. fall into four categories and are grouped within those areas as follows: ~D T~ e-n1 yV-1q-1~_ rtD s t ~nJ 5~-a-remen~-r ~s K e~5'o { u-n.e•~~ ..... _. Richard Procense November 9, 1976 Page Two General Comments 1. Alternative 1-G is in direct contradiction to the Federal Aviation Administration's funded and approved masterplan for the Aspen/ Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport. This master plan had assumed that highway expansion would occur to the east of the existing alignment. Pitkin County has just received approval of nearly $Z.5 million of federal funds to acquire properties consistent with the approved master plan. Strong continued consideration of alternative alignment 1-G would endanger the continuance of the federal governments support of the County's approved airport master plan. 2. Qne principal engineering disadvantage of Alternative 2-D mentioned on page 66 is that long stretches of S.H. 82 would be abandoned to other uses which could become a maintenance liability of the County. It is unlikely that the County would assume responsi- bility for such a liability and, in all likelihood~~would probably insist on removal and complete restoration of any abandoned sections of S.H. 82. ~ . ,,: 3. -There was no development of an implementation schedule or phasing plan for any of the considered alternatives. The D.E.I.S. recognizes the possibility of a twenty-five year construction period and stresses the current unsafe condition of the highway. An analysis of the most dangerous sections of the entire project length should be made, with an accommodating phasing plan indicating the relative order. and cost of each phase of each alternative. It is likely that this process may provide for the construction of an improved two lane facility as the first phase of an eventual four lane improvement. • 4. The D.E.Z.S., in discussing Alternate 3 (Improved two lane from Sardy to Aspen) states on page 72 that "This alternate would not • ~ be eligible for federal participation because capacity and safety criteria presently far exceed two lane standards." This statement points out that the consideration of using other than federal funds was foregone. If the existing two lanes were upgraded immediately by the State a significant increase in safety would be experienced. Currently the highway is a State responsibility and the continuing process of study, analysis and generation of federal funds takes indefinite lengths of time-which by default allow for " the continuance of the unsafe conditions of S.H. 82. This D.E.I.S. should consider the possibility of the State expending its own maintenance funds to immediately improve this critical section of S.H. $2 (Sardy to Aspen) rather than allow the continuance of the existing situation. A $3.3 million improvement is not beyond the financial capabilities of the State Highway Department. '~ _ .. Page~Three 5. Page $2 of tl:e D.E.I.S. addresses the issue of the "Effect of Auto Restraint Policies." Ttie County is currently underway with a thorough examination of all possible ways to reduce the impact of the automobile with respect to various alternative line haul modes being considered for the Aspen/Snowmass corridor. These automobile restriction plans should be included in the final Carbondale East E.I.S. as County adoption of an autcmobile re- striction plan could work in contradiction to any of the highway alternatives. 6. The best of the four lane alternatives offer the stated benefit of - providing an hourly capacity of 4,000 cars/hour or a service level "C" for the estimated 1990 average sumcner peak hourly volume. It is our observation that without substantial circulation and parking improvements in the City of Aspen, there will be no place for these cars to go. Like any phys~~.cal system, improved Capacities of any kind will result in increased pressures elses.There with the resultant breakdown of a newly created "weak-link." Two , - principal characteristics of the City of Aspen militate against the development of the scale of automobile movement envisioned by 'a four lane entrance higFiway. First, the nineteenth century - - .urban design pattern inherited from the City's early surveyors did not include attractive provisions for the automobile. Sub- • stantially increased parking could be integrated into the existing urban fabric of Aspen only at a great cost. The concept of above grade parking structures has been consistently rejected by the Community as undesirable. Aspen derives it's historic character and tourist appeal from the restored Victorian environment. It is hard to conceive of an above grade parking structure that could ' ~~ompliment the existing setting. A parking study done for the City • in 1975 by Pizzagali revealed the potential for a 3-tiered parkin;., - structure under Wagner Park to handle some 500 cars. A brief survey of national building experiences :,y our planning staff indicates an average construction cost of $3,000.00 per space of below grade parking. To build space for 600 cars (an equivalent of 12 blocks of angle parking) would cost the Aspen community ' - $4.8 million for construction plus $4.8 million financing costs for -..a total parking cost of $9.6 million dollars of which none could be financed by any other governmental agency. Limited revenues could be drawn from parking-users due to the seasonal fluctuation in tourism. Inevitably local property and sales taxes would be called upon to retire debts for such structures. - Secondly, there is a serious question as to the desirability of accommodating 4000/cars hour in terms of maintenance of a quality ., _zesort experience. The volumes envisioned in the D.E.I.S. are remini- scent of the traffic in urban areas-which vacationers seek to escape by coming to Aspen. ,~~- November 9, 1916 Page Four It is our conclusion then that Aspen is typical of communities developed prior .to the inc,~ption of the~autotnobile. The great eastern cities stand as testimony to the folly of connecting urban infrastructures with highways that provide greater capacity than cities are physically able to absorb. The direct costs to Local government for parking and circulation improvements created by a four lane are not identified in the D.E.I.S. and should be. ' 7. We believe that a four lane improvement w-i11 substantially affect. the Lourist mode of arrival from the gateway cities of Denver and Grand Junction to Aspen-. This is of equal direct concern to us with the increase in residential development that Till follow a . .. ~ new highway. The D.E.I.S. forecasts a 6l annual increase in highway use to 1990. With the four lane improvements discussed, we have no doubt that this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Auto arrival _ by tourists is a serious concern to the community and serious - actions are being discussed in our UMTA "Alternatives Analysis" • to provide alternative modes of arrival. These.inelude concerted efforts to provide increased commercial air service through staggered bookings. As you may know, many auto arrivals are now made necessary due to peaking on our airlines on Saturdays. If we could distribute vacation packages to anything other than straight Saturday to Saturday, then additional air trips and fewer auto trips to Aspen will be available. In addition to specific program ' changes, we will encourage and perhaps help finance additional advanced marketing information to prospective tourists to advise them of how to best avoid the bad drive from Denver to Aspen. In further support of this idea the County -,us system has been greatly ~-' expanded as has Aspen Ski Corp. Service. The D.E.I.S. should con- sider the impact on mode of arrival and does not. $. More information should be provided on the duration of peak traffic volumes. This would enable the public to choose between the various ' alternatives. For example, if a two lane improved alternative would offer a service level "E" for 1990 average peak hour volume it would be useful to know how many days a year this might occur and for how long each day. Certainly some trade off economics must exist between alternatives which range from 13 to 65 pillion. It may be worthwhile to sustain service level "E" for several hours a ' -day for 100 days of the year if this could spell millions of -dollars in savings. The D.E.I.S. should deal more with alternatives which reflect costs effectiveness. 9. The D.E.I.S. could benefit by several technical additions and/or corrections as follows: ,,r' . cvovemoer ~, lyid Page Five a. Table 25 (p.101) could be updated to include 75-76 data. • SKIER VIS1T5 75-76 Aspen Highlands - 320, 790; Aspen Mountain - 240, 800; $uttermilk - 214, 500; Snowmass - 636, 800; Total 4-area - 1,413,890; annual percent increase 4.2% Source: Aspen Skiing Corp. Phone conversation with Peter Sullivan. b. Tables 1 and 2 on pg. 89 should reflect most recent ' population analysis to read: Pitkin County 1975 estimated population = 13,252 and City of Aspen 1975 estimated population -~ 5,889. Both of these figures represent estimates of total permanent population. Tourist capacity exists to house an additional .18,529 tourists. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department. ~_Social Comments ,~~ 1. The sociological assessment listed many facts and very little analysis is generated. The only conclusion stated was that "a majority of the families residing within the corridor are living in mobile homes." Page I08 of the D.E.I.S. makes two statements which likely could have major sociological impacts to the valley. The first is that the four lane alternatives are five times as labor intensive as the two lane alternatives ($20,000,000 vs. $4,000,000 labor cost). The second statement is that "a small percentage of the jobs may be filled by residents in the project area." The questions of providing employee housing, increased governmental service requirements and the long term area-wide effects of the `~svarying population impacts created by the two and four lane alternatives was not addressed. The possible problem of the boom town condition should be examined. 2. Financial Impact Assessment of Local Governments was not examined. Prior discussion mentiona the amenities (parking structures, etc.) • that would be required as a result of the implementation of any Carbondale East project. Also, the social costs associated with respect to accommodating the construction of any such project further add to the local governments: responsibilities. A full and -Complete analysis of all financial liabilities placed upon all local governments of the valley should be de~~eloped with respect to each highway alternative. 3. The impact of the lifestyle attraction of the City of Aspen was not examined. Many current Aspen citizens have cYiosen that City for their place of residence due to its lack of urbanization and the effects of urban type improvements. A four lane highway entering Page Six Aspen is likely to create a "consicousness alteration" of the community, the result of which could be the eventual changing of the character and ~:ake up of its citizenry. This possible sociological phenomenon was not identified and it should be examined. ` Economic Comments 1. A statement made on p. 111 of the D.E.I.S. reads as follows: "The improved facility coupled with an improved facility through Glenwood Canyon could ma'.~e the Aspen resort more accessable to population in the Denver :Metro area during the winter months. The ski areas in Aspen could increasingly be viewed as a weekend trip." It is noted one of the principal objections noted in visitor surveys is that the in-town auto congestion and hassle was de- grading the resort and, they might not return as a result. The probable adverse economic impact of substantial additional commuting and resultant traffic congestion in the resort should be analyzed. ~, . This statement implies that the Aspen area would welccme an in- flux of weekend skiers along with their vehicles. This is contrary to the current marketing policy of the Aspen/Snowmass ski in- dustry - as this area is a winter destination resort accommodating tourists on a week to week basis. Very little, if any, lodging capacity is available on a weekend basis. Under current conditions, weekend visitors could not be accommodated and it is likely that a four lane g hway would work contrary to the destination resort policy. \ - If summer tourism continues to increase at present rates, it is ~~uite possible for the upper Roaring Fork Valley to develop the destination resort concept for the summer visitor. It has been speculated that the closing of Independence Pass to highway traffic would greatly further this concept, and this issue was not identified or analyzed in the D.E.I.S. Closing of Independence Pass could lead to reduced traffic loading on the Carbondale East section of S.H. 82, reducing the apparent necessity for a four lane facility. A further study of the summer destination resort/ -Independez~:e Pass question should be made. • 2. Page 175 of the D.E.I.S. states that. the upgrading of S.H. 82 will provide for "considerable savings in highway user costs over the 20 year design life of the highway." The expense incurred to Eain this apparent savings with respect to the two and four Iane highway alternatives were not developed. The total energy re- wuired to construct a~nJ the total taxpayer dollars required to finance each highway alternative should he compared relative to t're estimated return to users in the form of fuel and vehicle maintenance -November 9, 1976 Page Seven savings. This statement applies to the remarks on fuel savings within the last paragraph.~f p.175. - 3. Nowhere in the D.E.Z.S. is there analysis and discussion on the cost of maintaining each of the alternatives under consideration. _ It is most certain that annual maintenance and replacement costs will vary significantly between the two and four lane alternatives and it is likely that the State would be responsible for those costs. Analysis of these°costs should be included in the final E.I.S. 4. Page 178 of the D.E.Z.S. states that increased patrol throughout the corridor is "unrealistic because of its fiscal budget and - ~manpower limitations." The most costly four lane alternative being considered is estimated to bear a $65 million price tag. The annual costs of additional patroling of the Carbondale East section of S.H. 82 over an infinite period of time would be insignificant ° relative to four lane construction costs. The above mentioned statement should be reconsidered. 5. The impact of commercial development at each key intersection should be discussed and evaluated. ~~ Environmental Comments 1. The last paragraph on p.149 states that the improvement of S.A. 82 "will slightly reduce the pollutants emitted by vehicular traffic. This will be accomplis'tied by providing a more efficient -transportation facility which will eliminate congestion, inter- rupted traffic flows, and ." This is contradictory to a state- ment on p.112 "secondary growth will create some additional in town parking and congestion problems in Aspen." Also the increase in traffic to Aspen as a result of increased commuting from down valley should be analysed. - . The townsite of Aspen is where most human activity occurs, and --due to increased traffic and congestion in Aspen created by an improved highway, a reduction in air quality will automatically occur. Any improvement in air quality along the travel corridor of Carbondale East is irrevelant as it is a slight improving of a bad situation, whereas, a reduction of the air quality within the City of Aspen affects all humans living within the D.E.I.S. and should be included in the final E.I.S. ~` ~~ ° E~ 2. Page 183 of the D.E.I.S. - Gravel Excavation discussion is not /J1~'~ comprehensive enough. The analysis mentions that "the total pro- i f~;L`, feet will require a lar.~e amount of gravel." No indication was ~i),w;,. given as to what quantities of gravel material would be required ~/ for each alternative, where the material might be mined and what the altered land forms would look like upon completion of the pro- ~ect~and taking of the material. This relates to the physical and Richard Procense -- November 9, 1976 Page Eight ._ _ __ esthetic damage statement on the same page of the D.E.I.S. The esthetics statement is highly subjective and made without close an~ysis of the gravel source question. The last section of S.H. 82 four laned (Carbondale area) in 1974 and 1975 has remaining inoperative gravel pits which are currently -- abondoned without any apparent revegetating or stabilizing of steep cut slopes. If these unsightly cut slopes are considered as an automatic result of a four lane highway project, this should be indicated within this D.E.I.S. Analysis and discussion on gravel - - - material sources, locations and management of revegetating these potential sources should be done in a more thorough fashion in the - final E.I.S. - .° In light of the above mentioned considerations and examination of the ~° D.E.I.S., it would be prudent to develop an improved two lane highway - ~ -with immediate safety improvements. This would allow the State to • - - escrow the dollar savings realized by not building a four lane and - ~ use these monies in the future for a four lane should it be ultimately •decided to be the only solution, or perhaps alternative transporatian ___ 'systems. Such a decision would provide immediate relief to an unsafe • Yoad, allow great dollar savings, and provide the ability to expand the highway in increments should it be desired. -- For these reasons at this time we support the construction of Alternative '- 1D, 3D and defer comment on the Airport to Aspen section until the • completion of our transportation alternatives analysis which will carry - 'with it direct recommendations for the design of this critical section of road. °- - --- Our comments will also be made available at the Public Hearing on - November 22, 1976. _... ~~ ~ -_ -Thank you for the report and the opportunity to respond on behalf of our constituents. - Sincerely, -. - _J eph E wards, Jr. _ _ _ Ch ~''~ PIT IN .COUNTY BOARD.-OF COMMISSIONERS ~ - Stacy Standley, Mayor _ CITY OF ASPEPI, COLORADO - / JEE-SS/ rxu~w~~L r~UK llEVELOP'~SI,NT OI A JOINT TRANSPOI;TI~TION PROGRAM Introduction Review of the Carbondale East D.E.I.S, brought forth a consideration about the length of the entire review and financial planning process involved initiating any highway project. The time involved in preparation for a project of the scale of Carbondale East is very lengthy, and while this process is occuring the citizenry and guests of the Roaring Fork Valley continue suffering under the current conditions of State Highway 82. It is likely that at least another three to five years will pass prior to the commencement of any Carbondale East project as outlined in the D.E.I.S. Following is a four point program offered to the State Highway Department which, if supported and carried forth, might do a lot to minimize the impact of the existing traffic conditions of State Highway 82. Also, this proposed program may give local governments and the State Highway Department an opportunity to work together in a program which could prove valuable, experience wise, to both entities. 1. Upgrading of Existing Two Lane Highway A strict highway access program should be instituted and enforced. -This would include negotiating with the property owners of some of the current access points to develop joint access points where ever possible. Continuance of this year's joint turnoff lane development program with Pitkin County,.and development of left hand turning lanes at key intersections. A resurfacing of the entire highway from the West City limits of. Aspen to the Ranch at Roaring Fork should be accomplished as soon as possible. THe Maroon Creek Bridge should be examined and then provided with additional supports or replaced to relieve the swaying which re- ' sults in the continual asphalt breakup at the joints. An immediate reduction of the 40 mph speed limit through Basalt to .' 30 mph could be accomplished, providing additional safeguards for the users of the new business district and high school adjacent to the highway. 'Ilse shoulder widening program which~.began on the -"• west side of-Aspen should be continued all the way to the ~Gerbazdale area. These shoulders should be gr4ded and snowplowed for year around use for emergency purposes. Also, more guard railing could be installed along the more critical sections throughout the entire Carbondale East section of S.Ii. 82. 2. Cooperation with Local Government Transportation Programs Currently Pitkin County has a bus system serving the residents of Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin Counties. Joint participation in the lease or purchase of }cey properties adjacent to major intersections, e.g. Emma Road, Brush Creek Road, for use as park i J~. and ride facilities. Attractive park like parking lots with bicycle racks and other amenities could be developed at these sites encouraging the citizenry to use public transportation. Pitkin County is currently involved in a piggyback UP~ITA grant to purchase three necv buses for use on its Aspen Valley runs. Letters of support and lobbying on the part of State Highway Officials could greatly enhance she County's chances of gaining such grants. Also, the Highway Department could provide encouragement to the other local governments in the valley to submit grant apclications for equipment to provide greater public transportation services, e.g. Colorado !Mountain College, the City of Glen~•~ood Springs, Garfield County, etc. Enclosed is a rough sketch of a park and ride facility at Emma Road Inter- section (Basalt). - Support for other current County grants could be given by the State Highway Department. The transportation alternatives study grant sponsored by U~4TA and the bicycle oath grant request to the Highway Department could, if carried out and accomplished, create traffic diversions from S.~i. 82, and with State Highway Department involvement and participation, might be accomplished sooner. A '~ 3. On-Going Techhical Services Program with Local Governments. An in depth traffic survey and counting program could be developed under the State Highway Department with all local governments participating. Monthly surveys could be made using local govern- ment personnel, determining who uses the highway and for what purposes. From this type of data, or more accurate estimations of possible auto trip diversions could be made. These figures could -assist local governments in developing year around public transit •routes and schedules to best meet the needs of the citizenry and to reduce the auto impact on S.H. 82. Other technical support could be in the form of thorough accident analysis to determine where the accidents occur on the highway and the cases. These analysises could be so detailed as to call for traffic engineers to interview victims, patrolmen traffic conditions at the time of the incident, etc. This type of thorough investigation might rapidly identify a need for immediate improvements at specific :sections of the hiahcaay which could be developed prior to those sections of the highway where accidents occur least. .Should any Carbondale East program be approved by the State Highway Commission, it is likely that it would take a number of years to - develop and the most dangerous sections might be accomplished earlier than the less traveled, less dangerous sections of the highway. 4. Improved Maintenance and PatrolinQ of S.H. 82. Several specific items which could be improved upon or instituted to make the highway safer immediately are: a. Lobby the State Patrol for an additional patrolman on duty between Carbondale and aspen who could provide additional assistance for speeding reduction. • i a. b. Provide a local listed phone number for Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale citizens to call when unexpected *aeather conditions create unsafe conditions along the highway. Currently, the only place to call is Glenwood S~rinys. A 963, 927 and 923, 925 listing could be provided For, listed as STATE OF COLOIZr'1DU, fIighway Maintenance. In addition, road construction information could be provided through local radio stations. c. Joint participation with Pitkin County for an improved facility for road maintenance. The State's facility west of Aspen is minimal and the County is considering the • development of a new facility witriin the next several years. - By sharing one facility, both agencies might be able to pro- vide better service at a savings to the public. A ` 4 ~ ''/.i ;.j /.= ~,, _~_ ' iii